Sunday, February 17, 2013

HERE LIES JOHN McCLANE...R.I.P.: a review of "A Good Day To Die Hard"

"A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD"
Based upon characters created by Roderick Thorp
Screenplay Written by Skip Woods
Directed by John Moore
1/2* (one half of one star)

I hope this is not a sign of what the cinematic year of 2013 will have to offer.

Unbearably loud, violent and stupid, "A Good Day To Die Hard" is not only the very first film of 2013 I have seen, it has also immediately earned a spot as one of the very worst films of the year. 

While it should not serve as any surprise to me that John McClane has prematurely run out of his cinematic nine lives, I was, however, absolutely shocked to see how far our blue collar, working class hero has fallen in his adventures with just this one film. Honestly, the insanely intrepid John McClane, as portrayed with with command, swagger and "average joe" relatability by Bruce Willis, has survived the Nakatomi Plaza massacre, the Dulles International Airport terrorist attack, the voluminous and near constant screaming of Samuel L. Jackson alongside an incoherent climax, and even a PG-13 rating to near miraculous effect but even he is no match for a non-existent script, story or any creative reason to exist. In fact, there was really absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than financial, to make even one sequel to the 1988 action film classic. But somehow, someway, and by an almost sheer force of will, a variety of filmmakers and Willis have ensured that the good will they have earned from film audiences around the world for 25 years was not soiled as they have consistently produced hugely entertaining, exceptionally well produced and excitingly explosive bowls of movie popcorn that made you want to reach for seconds, thirds and fourths. 

But with bowl number five, I have the worst indigestion as "A Good Day To Die Hard" is a perfect example of what happens when the powers that be treat audiences as mere consumers and not as people deserving to receive high quality entertainment for their hard earned money and even more valuable time. While you will get much bang for your buck, everything you have ever loved about John McClane and his exploits are absolutely, positively nowhere to be found this time around. And yet, what else could I have expected from the writer of "Swordfish" (2001) and "The A-Team" (2010) and the director of "Flight Of The Phoenix" (2004) and "Max Payne" (2008)? And if for some inconceivable reason I am fooled into venturing into the inevitable sixth McClane adventure after the trash of this installment, then shame on me.  
As with all of the previous four films in the "Die Hard" series, the plot is extremely straightforward.  Detective John McClane (again played by Willis) travels to Russia to aid imprisoned CIA agent and his long estranged son Jack (Jai Courtney) from a terrorist plot. Yet unlike the four previous entries, this fifth film delves no further than that one sentence description and shamelessly so. In fact, Moore has made a film that is almost defiant in its inability to create even one solitary moment where you would...pardon my wrath, dear readers...give a shit about anything that happened! This is the type of film that firmly believes that if it keeps hurling explosions at you, the film will just get better. That the more shootouts and car chases and crashes it piles upon you, the film will just get better. But, John Moore is so blindingly WRONG as this film does indeed pummel you with all manner of cataclysm and the film just never...gets...better. 

Take the film's initial car chase which lasts for seemingly six hours. The sequence is a complete disaster  not for all of the wreckage upon the screen but the fact that it was conceived and edited with any sense of rhyme or reason that the story of the car chase is non-existent. You have no idea of where one character is in relation to another. It is edited with a meat cleaver and feels as if Moore shot mountains of footage, threw it all up into the air and stitched it together randomly. There is no intensity or excitement or action film awe. Just noise and a lot of it. For all of the cacophony nothing much actually happens in "A Good Day To Die Hard." While I will give all of my compliments to the special effects, set dressers and stunt teams for a job well done, all of it is for naught since Moore, Woods and Willis never bothered to show up for work themselves. 

And that's the major rub I have against films like "A Good Day To Die Hard" the most. It's the fact that this film did not even TRY to make something worthwhile of the series and for the 25 years worth of fans that the series has attained. It is coasting upon the "Die Hard" legend, hoping that our affection for the series will be enough...and it just ain't! We are living during a period where we have seen what I feel is the very best James Bond film to date in Director Sam Mendes' Skyfall" (2012) and the ferociously and inventively executed work from Director Brad Bird and Tom Cruise with "Mission: Impossible-Ghost Protocol" (2011) and I am sorry, a series with the pedigree of "Die Hard" has just NO EXCUSE to make a film that is so obviously a money grab that I feel as if I have just been rolled. 

Bruce Willis should just be so damn ashamed of himself. He is truly one of our most frustrating actors as when he actually decides to show up, he can still deliver strong, compelling, inventive work as evidenced with his performances in Wes Anderson's "Moonrise Kingdom" and Rian Johnson's "Looper" from just this past year. I cannot make myself believe that even at his laziest, he would sell out his signature character for a hefty paycheck and yet, there he is on the screen, eliciting his trademark smirk and uttering the most perfunctory lines of dialogue--half of which are nothing more than profane variations of "I'm on vacation!" and the other half exists as guttural utterances and grunts--to get to the next barrage of shattered glass. There are points in the film where the look on his face suggests that even he is wondering why he is doing this to his series as well as himself but then, he smirks once again, alerting the audience, "Oh yeah! I got $20 MILLION dollars to do this crap!" And for that, I just want to grab Willis and the film itself by the collars, bend them both over my knee and with my Grandmother's inimitable switch in hand, give them the seemingly interminable lashing it deserves...and in complete rhythm with my smacking like so: "HOW (SMACK!!) DARE (SMACK!!) YOU (SMACK!!) MAKE (SMACK!!) A (SMACK!!) MOVIE (SMACK!!) THIS (SMACK!!) TERRIBLE (SMACK!!)!!!!"   

I just want to pretend that this movie never happened. But since I just saw it this afternoon, the memory still lingers and stings. As I have said to you before, dear readers, I see these things so you don't have to. TRUST ME, this time!!! I implore you!!! There is just no reason to reward Bruce Willis and any films any more than he and they have already been rewarded for sub par work that has no respect for the art and artistry of the movies, the sheer joy that is found in great entertainment and the audiences that come out to theaters to see movies. "A Good Day To Die Hard" is not worth your time, money, patience or even one more thought from me until this time next year when I give it what should be the final nail in its coffin.

To cleanse myself, I think I'll re-watch the original, outstanding work from Director John McTiernan or even the stellar job from Director Renny Harlin's terrific sequel from 1990. Or maybe I give myself just some silence as a blank screen and no sound is instantly more compelling than any moment from the wretched "A Good Day To Die Hard."      

No comments:

Post a Comment